- #1

Of course, the idea of an infinite universe could just be based on the inifite boundary theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter RuroumiKenshin
- Start date

- #1

Of course, the idea of an infinite universe could just be based on the inifite boundary theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

- #2

ObsessiveMathsFreak

- 406

- 8

Infinity is NOT a number.

It is NOT a number.

Thank you. Please bear this in mind.

- #3

Mentat

- 3,918

- 3

Infinity is the concept of something that goes on forever.

Something infinite cannot expand (IMO).

We can never conclude that the universe is infinite, beyond question.

No, branes are not "sub-universes". Branes are mathematical additions of dimensions (AFAIK).

- #4

plus

- 178

- 1

- #5

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

paradoxical, all the time? What's so paradoxical

about it ? (I guess this should indeed be in the

philosophy forum.)

What's paradoxical about expanding infinity ?

Live long and prosper.

- #6

Anyhow, infinity is paradoxical because, as Mentat pointed out, something infinite is unable to expand. It goes on, and on, forever so how can something infinite expand?

- #7

Originally posted by plus

I'm working on it. Any how, I love doing math, because its just like a logic problem, and I love those too.

plus, what you said was not insulting. The truth is never,AFAIK, insulting.

- #8

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

Well, if it's only spacial expansion for exampleOriginally posted by MajinVegeta

Anyhow, infinity is paradoxical because, as

Mentat pointed out, something infinite is

unable to expand. It goes on, and on, forever

so how can something infinite expand?

then the distances between all objects will

simply grow.

Do understand me people - I'm not, at the moment,

denying the concept of real infinity as having

its own paradox of some kind, but I have yet

to see any clear fomalization of such a paradox.

Live long and prosper.

- #9

Mentat

- 3,918

- 3

Originally posted by plus

What/who are you talking about?

- #10

Mentat

- 3,918

- 3

Originally posted by drag

Greetings !

Well, if it's only spacial expansion for example

then the distances between all objects will

simply grow.

No, no, I was talking about the idea that the spacial dimensions themselves are expanding, not just that things are getting farther apart.

- #11

plus

- 178

- 1

Consider the set of the numbers A = {1, 2, 3, ......}, and now consider the set of A and 1/2, so it is B := {1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..}.

Then there is one number in B which is not in A. This could be said to be an expansion of A.

This I believe is a counterexample to one of Mentat's ascertations:

'Something infinite cannot expand',

although he needs say more precisely what he means by this.

- #12

- #13

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

That IS what I meant. Plus gives an appropriateOriginally posted by Mentat

No, no, I was talking about the idea that

the spacial dimensions themselves are

expanding, not just that things are

getting farther apart.

example here.

For example, suppose that you draw coordinates

and assign a number to every area of specific

size. Then multiply your infinite set of areas

by 2 and you'll see that the amount of areas

is now twice the previous amount - between say

your house and the nearest store.

It may be conceptually difficult, but if you

consider that space is infinite you don't have

to worry about what's outside at all - simply

don't bother yourself with that thought.

(I must note that I find it difficult, at this time,

to think of a more solid formalization of this idea,

so perhaps there is a fundumental mistake of some

kind in this line of reasoning.)

Live long and prosper.

- #14

Mentat

- 3,918

- 3

- #15

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

it as an example. The question is - what's the

difference ? Is there any ? And why ?

Live long and prosper.

- #16

- #17

dav2008

Gold Member

- 612

- 1

Take all even numbers...you would agree that there are an infinite amount of them....But you can always add an odd number to that set of inifinite numbers...just like "plus" said...

Its more mathematical in that sense...not physical..

- #18

- #19

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

I believe that what separates the mathematical universe from the physical universe is practicality. Practicality tells us that in order to exist, the universe must have physical laws. These laws (speed of light, for example) impose finite barriers in an attempt to give order to the universe. Even though these laws do prevent many physical infinities (max speed, min temp, etc), the fact that the universe is in constant motion creates many new infinities.

A common infinity is the coastline of great britain. It is impossible to obtain an exact answer for this, for to do so one must measure at increments infinitely less than planck length, which would require so much energy as to warp space enough to disrupt their results. Not to mention the uncertainty principle...

This is not to say that Britain does not have a definite coastline at a specific increment of time. It does, yet practicality (that word again) prevents us from saying so, because WE cannot obtain this measurement. The physical universe has a human element to it that the mathematical universe lacks. Einstein said that "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." So perhaps the universe is finite, and humans are so infinitely stupid that they cannot comprehend this.

Perhaps this thread belongs in the "philosophy" forum, but oh well.

- #20

Anyway, you bring up an excellent point that has been neglected. Although, it occurs to me that the concept of human stupidity being the obstacle of our understanding of the universe seems be undefined. I came upon this conclusion on the premise that everything is relative. If you were traveling at c, the external world would become blue shifted. But to an external observer, you are the one who is blue shifted. So, you, and the observer are both correct for the whole matter is anisotropic and each of you has the right to your observations. Now, from our perspective, the universe is infinite. Possibly, to an "external" observer, the universe, perhaps, is not infinite. I doubt stupidity has anything to do with the matter.

- #21

infinity is the only other singular point as zero is in respect to positive and negative.make XOY system.it's flat surface/plane with 4 infinity points (2 on each axis).now try to do this:

shift x and y for infinity.you'll get that they both begin with -0 and end with +0 while there is only one infinity in the center.i think that XOY should transform into sphere with radius inf/2 where zero and inf are diametricaly oposite.

- #22

- #23

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

Indeed. But, should there be a fundumentalOriginally posted by MajinVegeta

THIS THREAD IS MAINLY

QUESTIONING THE PHYSICAL PARADOXES OF INFINITY.

NOT MATHEMATICAL PROSPECTS.

difference ? And why ?

(I adressed this above, I believe.)

Live long and prosper.

- #24

In my mind at least, infinity is something that, not only goes on forever, but also has gone on for ever, well as far as the Physical definition goes (refering to the universe)

- #25

plus

- 178

- 1

Mathematics is used to describe the physical universe. Things which are infinite CAN get larger.

A physical example of something getting larger.

Consider the domain in which you are allowed to move in cylindrical coordinates.

Now suppose that at a time t, you are allowed to move in the range

0< theta < t, where theta is the angle in degrees and that there is no restriction on the vertical range or the horizontal distance.

Then up to t=360, although the domain is infinite, it is still expanding. This is not "just a mathematical infinity" it is a practical one, which I have described the only way possible, using mathematics.

NB I could have easily chosen the function so that it increased for ever, but chose this one as it is easier to see what is happening.

Surely you will see now!!!

- #26

Originally posted by Stormy

In my mind at least, infinity is something that, not only goes on forever, but also has gone on for ever, well as far as the Physical definition goes (refering to the universe)

That contradicts the big bang. Apparently, you implied that infinity has no beginning.

Could it be that infinity describes state of being?

- #27

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

That contradicts the big bang. Apparently, you implied that infinity has no beginning.

Could it be that infinity describes state of being?

Actually (and quite technically speaking), at the instant of the big bang, the universe did occupy infinite volume. If we imagine the universe beginning as a singularity (which is not proven, of course), the big bang marked the instant that the universe began expanding, not when it was a singularity. There is a very tiny difference here, but the only universe that has been measured is the infinite universe (after the first increment of planck time), and the big bang marks this increment, not the time before it.

This is, of course, a small argument, but I still feel Stormy poses an interesting question. After all, we really don't know what the universe was before it was infinite.

- #28

wimms

- 496

- 0

If you don't accept mathmatics, then this is inherently philosophical question. But I'd like to point out that infinity is NOT a number. You can't apply arithmetics on it, only on a number IN that infinite set. Infinity as unique concept has no meaning and no logical sense by our standards. Its more like direction rather than target.

Infinity is intimately related to concept of Nothing. If universe were finite, it would mean there are boundaries. By definition, beyond these boundaries there must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment, what is Nothing? Say you have two things separated by Nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything. Is that possibly detectable? Nope. If there is nothing separating two things, they must be touching. If there are 2 universes separated by Nothing, they must be touching, lumping into single Universe. Therefore it is not possible to separate by Nothing.

Now we can say that Universe must be infinite just because Nothing is not logically detectable in principle. And from here, nice reasoning of existence, as logical outcome of impossiblity of state of Nothing.

How can it expand? Can ONE thing be infinite? hehe. it can. Can it split? it can. Can it split forever? why not. Can its multiplicity increase forever? it can. Can it be perceived as expnsion? any time.

- #29

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

First of all, it's physics not mathematics.Originally posted by wimms

big bang, big-bang. Bigbangboo. We have

this cute law: energy cannot be created

nor destroyed. Thats it - no beginning of

universe. Bigbang might be beginning of

our cosmology, but not universe.

If you don't accept mathmatics, then this

is inherently philosophical question.

Second, all the physical laws currently

recognized are limmited by the BB and no

one, so far, attempted to expand them to that

point and beyond because we simply have no idea

about it, again - so far.

I believe a mathematician would disagreeOriginally posted by wimms

But I'd like to point out that infinity is

NOT a number. You can't apply arithmetics on

it, only on a number IN that infinite set.

Infinity as unique concept has no meaning and

no logical sense by our standards. Its more

like direction rather than target.

with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll

just keep my mouth shut.

If the Universe's dimensions were ringsOriginally posted by wimms

Infinity is intimately related to concept

of Nothing. If universe were finite, it would

mean there are boundaries.

for example - where are the limmits ?

Higher dimensions ?

How about - not anything. Makes a difference ?Originally posted by wimms

By definition, beyond these boundaries there

must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment,

what is Nothing?

What is your definition of logic ?Originally posted by wimms

Now we can say that Universe must be infinite

just because Nothing is not logically

detectable in principle. And from here,

nice reasoning of existence, as logical

outcome of impossiblity of state of Nothing.

Is logic (in your definition )the absolute

guide of the Universe ? Or maybe, your logic

can still outsmart you (like relativity outsmarted

physicts before - and without logical discrepancies) ?

More to the point - the Universe is not logical.

Live long and prosper.

- #30

Mentat

- 3,918

- 3

Originally posted by drag

it as an example. The question is - what's the

difference ? Is there any ? And why ?

Live long and prosper.

Well, you were talking about a mathematical concept, the adding of infinities. I was merely showing that this mathematical concept is less present in the "real" (physical) world than a straight line (this is a hyperbole, please let there be no debate on whether one impossibility is more likely than another).

Anyway, did you read my previous post? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

- #31

plus

- 178

- 1

Originally posted by drag

Greetings !

I believe a mathematician would disagree

with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll

just keep my mouth shut.

Correct.

There is a huge amount of research done into the field of infinity, and I have studied some of it. You may want to find out about the extended real line and some really rigorous work there.

If we are to talk rigorously about infinity, then we should all have Phds in maths. We cannot hope to get to grips with some of the facets of it in this thread, which is written mostly by laypeople.

Rigorous mathematics and physics cannot be handled by conceptions alone. It needs to be accompanied by technical detail.

- #32

Could you apply Zeno's paradox to understanding infinity?

- #33

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,100

- 1

Like I said before that message - things insideOriginally posted by Mentat

Alright, let me explain: I am not talking

about mathematical infinities. I know that

there can be more than one infinity, in maths,

and that there can be "bigger" infinities.

However, I'm talking about space itself.

If you take a space that is infinite (as in,

having no end), how could you possibly add

more space to this? Even if you could,

(though I don't think you could) your result

would be the same as before (infinity), and

thus you haven't made it any bigger at all.

will get farther or closer apart. You'll have

the symptoms of growth.

What you seem to be bothered by are the borders,

but infinity has none, does it ?

Live long and prosper.

- #34

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

- #35

wimms

- 496

- 0

Ah, now I'm lost. Why did you find important to object that so strongly?Originally posted by drag

First of all, it's physics not mathematics.

Second, all the physical laws currently

recognized are limmited by the BB and no

one, so far, attempted to expand them to that

point and beyond because we simply have no idea

about it, again - so far.

ok, lets leave infinities to Phds in math. They feel touched when laymen talk about their pets. Although extended real line specifically warns that infinity is not a number and should never be treated as number, but only as function.I believe a mathematician would disagree

with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll

just keep my mouth shut.

If the Universe's dimensions were rings

for example - where are the limmits ?

Higher dimensions ?

In regards to rings, what you mean by ring? 2D object? 2D planes are infinite, ring is only subset.

not anything vs nothing - no difference. There is no reason to exchange definitions of logic, that will go too far off topic. There is probably also huge research in that area constantly heating up. Suffice it to say that logic is the basis of any and all proofs you'd ever heard of. My application of logic may be flawed, in which case you may show my error. I reached such thought as I showed, and unless you can show my error, I see no reason to be sarcastic.How about - not anything. Makes a difference ?

What is your definition of logic ?

Is logic (in your definition )the absolute

guide of the Universe ? Or maybe, your logic

can still outsmart you (like relativity outsmarted

physicts before - and without logical discrepancies) ?

More to the point - the Universe is not logical.

Universe not logical? kidding right? Some argue that universe is not only logical, but rather IS the thing itself.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 196

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 689

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 387

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 600

- Replies
- 76

- Views
- 17K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 79

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 19K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 15K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 5K